header-logo header-logo

27 November 2015 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7678 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Whose decision is it anyway?

nlj_7678_pigott

Less emphasis should be placed on the state of mind of an individual decision maker in cases of unfair dismissal, says Charles Pigott

It has always been regarded as a key ingredient of procedural fairness that the decision to dismiss must be that of the dismissing officer, not least because the employee should be given the opportunity to influence the final decision at the disciplinary hearing. It is also accepted that managers making disciplinary decisions frequently need to take advice, whether from their internal human resources (HR) department or from external experts. But at what point does legitimate advice stray into unjustified interference with the decision-making process?

This issue is not addressed directly in the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The more extensive ACAS Guide on Discipline and Grievances at Work includes only two mentions. It recommends that if guidance is needed advice should be sought from someone who will not be involved in any potential appeal or from the ACAS helpline. Later on it has a small section

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll